They've sustained growth using this model for decades. Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea? How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind? 100 years? Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

I'm sorry... this marks you as an idiot or a corporate sycophant. There is no dogma to that belief. It's mathematical. Eventually you outgrow the world.

*facepalm* That doesn't make Disney's short-term firing a short-sighted business practice. That's what I'm talking about. Your point is like citing the energy limit of the universe. It's pointless Malthusianism.

Gonz:TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".

That would make it seem like they only have a part of their plan in place. "Future growth" is a very curious phrase, especially with Disney. It could just be an empty statement, or it could mean they're launching a new media strategy. Removing 175 jobs saves them, at best, what? Between $8.75 and $17.5 million? What does that pay for?

/Also, dammit if their park costs are 1/10th of their revenue, why do they keep raising prices?!!!

FrancoFile:But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static. Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there. And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here. If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right. But that's a loooooong way away.

I see your point but again, hardly unlimited. And again, their focus is NOW and next quarter, not in 100 years in the Orion Nebula.

d23:Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".

I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God. It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process. The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws. They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.

Of course none of this will happen any time soon as our congresscritters are basically corporate controlled... but that is the way it is supposed to work.

You are correct that it won't happen, but are wrong regarding the reason.

It won't happen because congresspeople are smart enough to realize that forcing companies to change their mission from serving stockholders to something like "maintaining employment" would be detrimental to the economy, doing more harm than good for ordinary Americans as a whole.

Debeo Summa Credo:It won't happen because congresspeople are smart enough to realize that forcing companies to change their mission from serving stockholders to something like "maintaining employment" would be detrimental to the economy, doing more harm than good for ordinary Americans as a whole.

d23:Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".

I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God. It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process. The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws. They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.

Of course none of this will happen any time soon as our congresscritters are basically corporate controlled... but that is the way it is supposed to work.

This is dead accurate. A corporation is a legal fiction we agree to. If it doesn't suit us, we can eliminate it. We probably won't, but (for example) the LLC is a relatively new construct, proving we can change the way things work.

d23:I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God. It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process. The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws. They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.

I absolutely hate when people trot out the "must maximize shareholder value or they can go to jail!!"chesnut. I would love to know who the first person was to print that on a forum that monkeys just keep repeating so I can cockpunch him. There is no such thing. Otherwise, why not just sell the company right off. The CEO and board have a responsibility to promote the success of the company. That's it. This is why they can buy a fleet of jets and give themselves bonuses and make terrible business decisions and not get fired or go to jail.

skinink:Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

It was a shame they let Professor Xavier Hank go:

/Why yes, not being able to find larger images IS a disability//Don't judge me

jakomo002:Wangiss: Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s. Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people? I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.

Unlimited growth is unsustainable. Disney's longterm sustainability looks forward maximum two quarters. If one segment does poorly they axe it immediately.

Their spreadsheets have a section called Labor Costs and that's how they see their employees. Not as an INVESTMENT but a cost that cuts into profit and might negatively impact stock price.

jakomo002:FrancoFile: But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static. Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there. And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here. If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right. But that's a loooooong way away.

I see your point but again, hardly unlimited. And again, their focus is NOW and next quarter, not in 100 years in the Orion Nebula.

Well you just undercut your own argument.

They don't have an issue with growth in the next quarter. And then 3 months from now they re-assess and see what to do then.They are a mature company in a mature industry; they can cover future investments with a small portion of current cash flow. New companies, and companies in new markets, run losses for a long time while they develop their products, their processes, their brands, and their distribution systems.

You can't make the CFO of Disney responsible for the ultimate future of the human race...

AgentBang:Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.

Booking your next vacation to a Detroit ghetto? That place is as real as it gets. Probably a lot cheaper than Disney, too.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses. If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit. Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs. Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."

The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. ShareholdersThen they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees. It's always the shareholders first. There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees. I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.

Apple Retail? That sounds like what happened when Apple Retail finally decided to get some internal morale numbers.

skinink:Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

jst3p:skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator.

People have given up trying to find a job so the numbers are eschewed. Think of it this way. You have 20 people in a class. On test day 18 take the test and 12 pass it. Instead of saying that 60% passed, they are saying that 66% passed, or 2/3 of the test takers.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

geopb:175 people is not a lot of people to Disney. This is likely either (A) eliminating the poorest performers or (B) getting rid of some small part of the business. Maybe they're getting rid of go.com or something.

But seriously... you all think that there's some moral responsibility that employers have to keep people employed when they're not needed?

AgentBang:Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers. It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial. Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic. The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good." Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.

FrancoFile:They don't have an issue with growth in the next quarter. And then 3 months from now they re-assess and see what to do then.They are a mature company in a mature industry; they can cover future investments with a small portion of current cash flow. New companies, and companies in new markets, run losses for a long time while they develop their products, their processes, their brands, and their distribution systems.

False. They are ALWAYS focused narrowly on this quarter, and a bit of next. Technology companies sometimes focus longterm when they are developing new gizmos, but not most companies. I've been in meetings like this (not Disney), and the only forward looking they do, mostly, is come up with estimates about how much they will make next quarter, and then scramble to the very last day of the quarter to hit it.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers. It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial. Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic. The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good." Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.

Not arguing with you.

But you can't write and implement enabling legislation without settling the philosophical point - at least for some period of time. We did better at settling those philosophical points in the era of Teddy Roosevelt. We've done it a little bit from the New Deal up through the Clinton-Gingrich grand bargain on welfare reform.

But a large number of the political issues that are in the mix today are philosophical, not technocratic. If there's a social consensus, and therefore a political consensus, that we need to do X, then the arguments about how to do X are not generally acrimonious. But we can't, for the most part, decide on what X is right now.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers. It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial. Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic. The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good." Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.

The General Welfare Clause was never intended to apply to Corporations. Corporations, for the first 90 years of this Country's existence, as spelled out by the men who wrote the Constitution, were only allowed to engage on one task or purpose, then dissolve after that was completed. It wasn't until the 1890s that they were allowed to become immortal and immune to most civil and criminal law, and it was only after the 1980s that they were almost totally indemnified from criminal law.

skinink:Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount. eliminate pension costs.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers. It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial. Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic. The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good." Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.

The General Welfare Clause was never intended to apply to Corporations. Corporations, for the first 90 years of this Country's existence, as s ...

The General Welfare Clause is applicable to only one body, which is a corporation in the broad sense.

farkingatwork:Trying to make sure revenues for the year are in the green? Lay off a shiatload of people in Q4!

Except it's profit not revenue. They can have the same revenue (or less) than last quarter, but by cutting costs they increase profit and thus share price. Though LESS revenue might mean less increase in share price.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

I was referring to the general welfare (10%+ unemployment). The point there was to (philosophically/hypothetically) say the general welfare of 10%+ of the working population and their dependents are poor and suffering, where the root cause (offending resource) was the elimination of jobs by the private market. Maybe I'm ignorant, but my point was that watching citizens suffer while reaping record benefits is unethical and irresponsible. Perhaps others call it harsh or tough luck, I see it otherwise.

I use 10% unemployment as an imaginary threshold, maybe it's higher, but there's certainly a breaking point where if a government finds that it simply can't sustain the well-being of its population with the current budget and it's not getting any help from the private sector, they simply need to seek other means*. The obvious solution would seem to be to tap into the root cause who also conveniently have the resources. And while I do believe in that as a value, I was being facetious, as it seems absurd to thnk with all of the lobbying and corporate political contributions that our government wouldn't simply place the burden on its citizens instead.

Thank you. I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

ikanreed:AngryDragon: Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.

Please retire that same old rhetoric. We all know the Job Creators don't perform layoffs, that's delegated to the evil middle classes, they only hire new employees. Esepcially when their profit post-tax is higher.

Burr:bdub77: Once you piss off the upper middle class, it's game over.

See, here is the thing. You can screw over everybody else, because they lack the charisma, intelligence and/or drive to stage a revolt. They might have one of the traits, but usually not any of the others. If they had such things, they would be in upper middle class

Now, the upper middle class, they might not have the numbers, but they have the intelligence and drive to round up the lower classes and take down the top. They also might have more charisma as well, which would make them better leaders and, if it came to it, martyrs. If Joe Sixpack gets gunned down due to rebellious talk, it can be covered up pretty easy and be wrote off as a "lunatic" or "terrorist". But if say a college professor or a local small business man get gunned down, well, now we have something, because why would somebody, who lives a pretty comfortable life, want to risk their way of life and change things unless things were really, really bad.

/my 2 cents

Absolutely correct.

The Homestead riot in the late 1800's was fermented by the Scotch-Irish skilled tradesmen.

They riled up the lower immigrant steel workers while they sat in their offices and watch the festivities.

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement. It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means. After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle. If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question. The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare. To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource. Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

I was referring to the general welfare (10%+ unemployment). The point there was to (philosophically/hypothetically) say the general welfare of 10%+ of the working population and their dependents are poor and suffering, where the root cause (offending resource) was the elimination of jobs by the private market. Maybe I'm ignorant, but my point was that watching citizens suffer while reaping record benefits is unethical and irresponsible. Perhaps others call it harsh or tough luck, I see it otherwise.

I use 10% unemployment as an imaginary threshold, maybe it's higher, but there's certainly a breaking point where if a government finds that it simply can't sus ...

Their purpose is not to sustain well-being. It is to promote well-being through the even-handed rule of law within strictly delineated powers. The government cannot and should not provide the entire nation's well-being. That system has been tried in many, many places and it does not work.

Nana's Vibrator:AgentBang: Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.

Booking your next vacation to a Detroit ghetto? That place is as real as it gets. Probably a lot cheaper than Disney, too.

I hope everybody here realizes that "shareholders" aren't a bunch of Daddy Warbucks sitting around a big table smoking cigars and drinking cognac.

Some of the largest shareholders are pension funds (ironically, a lot of them are for unionized funds such as the NEA) and, if a company doesn't deliver as well as they want, they are free to move that money into other investments leaving the company short.

Wangiss:Their purpose is not to sustain well-being. It is to promote well-being through the even-handed rule of law within strictly delineated powers. The government cannot and should not provide the entire nation's well-being. That system has been tried in many, many places and it does not work

I'm writing strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population. (Again philisophical,linear, shortsighted, whatever) Just or not, the current government system of taxation is, among other things, a means of redistribution. They would have no other choice but to redistribute from a hoarding private business sector if faced with an unacceptable level of population that can not sustain itself. The key there is "hoarding" private sector, that writen or unwritten, certainly has an obligation to the population that lives within the same borders in which they operate./no idea how I got here after a story about only 175 out of probably tens of thousands being laid off.